Epps v. Peters

154 So. 123, 26 Ala. App. 108, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 45
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 10, 1934
Docket6 Div. 520.
StatusPublished

This text of 154 So. 123 (Epps v. Peters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Epps v. Peters, 154 So. 123, 26 Ala. App. 108, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 45 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

Opinion

*109 RICE, Judge.

The suit was begun by. Yiola Epps, plaintiff, against Charles W. Peters and Masonic Endowment Department, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Alabama. There was one count of the complaint, in Code form, claiming, etc., on a life insurance policy.

Thereafter, counts A, B, and O were added by way of amendment, seeking recovery against only Endowment Department, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Alabama.

Then, later, counts D, E, and F were added, seeking recovery against only Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Alabama (colored), who had been theretofore, since the institution of the suit, made a party defendant. Chas. W. Peters was, on plaintiff’s motion, stricken out as a party defendant.

Motion to strike counts A, B, C, D, E, and F was granted. Assignments of error are based upon the action of the court in striking each of the counts mentioned, separately, and severally; but all of the assignments are grouped and argued together as one assignment, presenting but one question.

In such situation, if any one of the assignments is without merit, the others need not be considered. City of Montgomery v. Moon. 208 Ala. 472, 94 So. 337.

All that needs be said, further, is that counts D, E, and F, certainly each constituted an entire departure from the original complaint or wrought a complete change of parties. They were obviously stricken without error. North Italian Colonial Co. v. Janovich-Calafiore Co. et al., 166 Ala. 201, 52 So. 339; Moore v. First National Bank of Florence, 139 Ala. 595, 36 So. 777.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Montgomery v. Moon
94 So. 337 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Moore v. First National Bank of Florence
139 Ala. 595 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1903)
Sandford v. Wiley
52 So. 339 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
North Italian Colonial Co. v. Janovich-Calafiore Co.
52 So. 329 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
154 So. 123, 26 Ala. App. 108, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epps-v-peters-alactapp-1934.